Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of the fracture distribution and demographic data between patients with isolated pelvic fracture (group A) and combined spine/pelvic injury (group B). Values are shown as n (%) or as the mean ± standard deviation [range]; the data of ISS (Injury Severity Score) are the median values

From: Patients with combined pelvic and spinal injuries have worse clinical and operative outcomes than patients with isolated pelvic injuries analysis of the German Pelvic Registry

  GROUP A (n = 8 151 GROUP B (n = 2 281) p
AGE, YEARS, MEAN ± SD [RANGE] 70.5 ± 20.4 [4–105] 49.8 ± 21.3 [6–102]  < 0.0001
SEX, % (n)     < 0.0001
 MALE 35.5% (2.893) 58.1% (1.325)  
 FEMALE 65.5% (5.258) 39.4% (899)  
ISS 9 28  < 0.0001
TYPE OF PELVIC fracture, % (n)    0.31
 PELVIC RING FRACTURE 73.1% (5.956) 54.9% (1.252)  
 ACETABULAR FRACTURE 23.3% (1.898) 37.6% (858)  
 COMBINED PELVIC RING + ACETABULAR FRACTURE 3.6% (297) 5.0% (114)  
TYPE OF PELVIC RING FRACTURE, % (n)     < 0.0001
 STABLE (TILE A) 44.8% (2.669) 7.8% (178)  
 UNSTABLE (TILE B/C) 55.2% (3.287) 89.7% (2.046)